heh

Ontario in decline! (Maybe.)

According to this article in the National Post, some think-tank economist has decided Ontario's position is threatened.

In his analysis, Mr. Orr said that in the mid-1980s, Ontario's standard of living was 15% above the Canadian average, and for a time was briefly tied for first with Alberta in 1986 and 1987. But that has dropped, to roughly 9% above the national average in 2002 and only 7% last year. And it is set to fall farther, according to Global Insight's forecast, to 5.5% above average this year and only 4% by 2010.

The problem with this kind of argument is that Ontario is so large within the Canadian picture that it more or less defines the average.

The Department of Finance and Google Ads

Many odd-balls and cranks inhabit the internet: that is no surprise. The oddest and crankiest add radio their repetoire. Exhibit A, Craig Chandler of Freedom Radio Network. Exhibit B, Doug Aldridge of www.therightside.ca. Doug, as he tells us, spent 26 years in various radio jobs until becoming the Reform candidate in Leeds-Grenville in 1997.


Aldridge now has an internet radio show, where you'll find a collection of the usual suspects: recent interviewees include Gerry Nicholls (formerly of the Taxpayers Federation), Pierre Bourque (Nascar Driver and would-be Drudge), and "the true story of how the Dominion Day tradition was hi-jacked by 13 sneaky Liberals". Interesting! (Or perhaps not.)

Also interesting is the ads on the side. Adwords, in case you didn't know it, are how Google makes much of its money. Advertisers buy an ad, and then pay Google for every internet surfer who clicks on the link and goes to the site. Google uses complex algorithm to place ads where they are most likely to be clicked, and then pays the site-owner (blogger, etc.) on a per click basis.

The top on of these ads leads to a webpage at the Dept. of Finance touting a presentation of Flaherty on Income Trusts under the heading of Tax Fairness Plan. Click through (thus earning both Google and Mr. Aldridge a few cents and you find yourself at Minister Flaherty’s presentation on Income Trusts to the Finance Committee – January 30, 2007

But why is the Department of Finance paying to advertise this page and on a pay-per-click basis?

I hate …

… can't even say the word

And the further one has to ______, the more unpleasant the task of _____ing.

Lemire's motion to subpoena Bell

Below is the motion of Marc Lemire applying that Bell Canada be subpoenaed for information about an IP address that at some point had been associated with "jadewarr", a pseudonym used by Dean Steacy of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. (I've placed copies here to function as archive; the original was posted at Lemire's own site: http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/infiltrators_target_lemire-Motion_filed_for_Bell_Subpoena.html.

Here is a text version that should be easier to search.

Motion by Marc Lemire for Subpoena of Bell Canada ’s Records to Ascertain identity of Stormfront User Account “Jadewarr” May 14, 2007 Re: Warman v. Lemire, Tribunal No. T1073/5405 To: Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, This is a motion by the respondent for a subpoena of Bell Canada for all documents and information concerning the IP Address 70.48.181.203. The facts which form the basis of this motion are as follows: On December 12, 2006, during questioning of Richard Warman by Paul Fromm in the matter of Warman v. Beaumont, he asked about an exhibit filed by the Commission from the Stormfront website which was headed “Welcome, Jadewarr”. Mr. Warman testified that it came from the Commission. T1106-8705 2006-12-12 Warman-Beaumont CHRC attempts to put into evidence a post from Stormfront entitled “ Italy for Italians” at Tab 17. Warman V. Beaumont. The top of the page showed the login name as “Jadewarr’ MR. FROMM: Can you explain what that is, "Welcome, Jadewarr? MR. WARMAN: It appears to be a name that was logged in under. MR. FROMM: By whom? MR. WARMAN: I'm sorry, I don't know. (Page 273, Transcripts) MR. FROMM: Is it your testimony, then, that it's a Commission document? MR. WARMAN: It originates with the Commission. I do not know its providence. (Page 275, transcripts) The person using the account “jadewarr” on Stormfront has attempted to engage Marc Lemire in public conversations on the message board; The person using the account “jadewarr” has engaged a person using the account “fenrisson” numerous times in private conversations on the Stormfront system; The Stormfront “fenrisson” user posts have been used at least twice by the Commission to dismiss complaints against Richard Warman and CAERS as “vexatious”; In March, 2007, Marc Lemire requested and received the e-mail address, IP address, hostname and access to the Stormfront account “jadewarr” from the owner of the Stormfront website, Mr. Don Black The information regarding “jadewarr” provided by Mr. Don Black was as follows: IP Address: 70.48.181.203 Host Name bas2-ottawa23-1177597387.dsl.bell.ca E-Mail address used: jadewarr@yahoo.ca During the hearings in Ottawa on May 10, 2007 , the Commission claimed Section 37 of the Canada’s Evidence Act over questions relating to the Stormfront Account “Jadewarr” The respondent is requesting a subpoena of Bell Canada ’s records to ascertain the user account and subscriber information for the following: User account and subscriber information for the user of IP Protocol address: 70.48.181.203, with hostname bas2-ottawa23-1177597387.dsl.bell.ca, that was connected to the Bell Sympatico and/or Bell Canada network on: December 8th, 2006 at 03:29 PM (EST) (Also Known as: 3:29 PM “ Ontario time” to Bell Canada Corporate Security) It is submitted that this information is relevant to the hearing of the constitutional issues in this case as it shows the activities of the Commission under section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act are going far beyond attempting to ameliorate discrimination, and are impacting the fairness of its procedures, the rights of complainants and respondents both, and the guarantees to Charter rights. The Commission appears to be actively engaging with respondents on message boards, in particular with relevance to this case, Mr. Lemire. The respondent should be able to question Commission witnesses concerning these matters upon the resumption of the hearing in Ottawa in June if in fact “Jadewarr” is proven to be the Commission.

(Note: I've back-dated this in blogger to its original composition date.)

May 10, 2007: Dean Steacy's CHRT testimony

Below is a section of the transcripts from Dean Steacy's testimony from May 10, 2007 (Warman v. Lemire, T1073/5405, vol. 21, pp. 4792).

(This post has been back-dated to the date of the testimony for archival purposes.)

MS KULASZKA:	Mr. Steacy, you were talking before about context and how important it is when you do your investigation. What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate one of these complaints?	p. 4792, line 24
MR. STEACY:	Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value.	4
MS KULASZKA:	Okay. That was a clear answer.	6
MR. STEACY:	It's not my job to give value to an American concept.	8
MS KULASZKA:	I will give you an example. The AOL complaints you spoke about earlier and you said that they dealt with postings about the same-sex marriage debate. Is that right?	10
MR. STEACY:	Yes.	15
MS KULASZKA:	Did you give any kind of consideration to the fact that people were participating in a political debate at the time?	16
MR. STEACY:	Yes.	19
MS KULASZKA:	How did you do so?	20
MR. STEACY:	In evaluating the information or the postings that were given by the posters, what was looked at were the arguments that were being made by the complainant and/or the respondent, and basically the positions of the parties. In one case, one of the respondents put the issue forward of freedom of expression. That was part of his defence, and what he had posted was what he had posted. That information was provided to the complainant for his comment, and, again, based on the facts raised or the information provided by both parties, that is what was presented in the investigation report. I didn't make a value judgment as to whether or not the complainant or the respondent -- that the positions they were taking were right or wrong, I presented both parties' positions. My job is not to evaluate the intent or the reasons why the individual posted what he posted, or evaluate the reasons why the complainant is complaining. He has made an allegation and my job is to investigate whether it happened and, based on the pertinent facts, I come up with a recommendation, and that recommendation is presented to the Commission and the Commission makes the decision to deal with it or not to deal with it, and it recommends what it is allowed to recommend.	p. 4793, line 21
MS KULASZKA:	Do you take into account, for instance, in that case, that there is a political debate, it is very heated, and that people might get emotional about it?	p. 4794, line 23
MR. STEACY:	Yes, that was one of the factors that was taken into account in one of the cases. But, at the same point in time, the comments and how far they went, and where they went, and the level of the intensity that they went, was also factored into the position of the parties.	p. 4795, line 2
MS KULASZKA:	So if someone claims freedom of speech for what they said, it is rejected out of hand?	9
MR. STEACY:	If somebody is claiming freedom of expression, it is not rejected. As I said, freedom of speech is an American concept, it is not a Canadian concept. If somebody said, "I am doing this because of freedom of speech," I would equate that to somebody raising a freedom of expression concept.	12
MS KULASZKA:	But you do realize that freedom of expression is protected under the Charter of Rights in Canada.	19
MR. STEACY:	To a point it is.	22
MS KULASZKA:	Yes, so I am asking you if you try to balance these values, these rights, in an investigation of section 13.	23
MS DAVIES:	Mr. Chair, is the witness being asked to do a constitutional analysis? It is not his job to determine whether section 13 is constitutional, he just applies it.	p. 4796, line 1
THE CHAIR:	Yes, I understand that. That is clear, but I think it is important to understand how the Commission undertakes its investigations. I think that is what is being asked for here, on what basis does he exercise his duties to make recommendations. That's understood. It is certainly quite enlightening to hear what he is saying. Go ahead.	6
MR. STEACY:	What specific type of language am I allowed to use?	16
THE CHAIR:	You are free to use any language you want.	18
MR. STEACY:	I mean profane language.	20
THE CHAIR:	Oh, it's permissible, given the nature of the subject matter. You may use profane language.	21
MR. STEACY:	If, for example, a posting says, "Every gay person should be taken out and whacked because they are butt fuckers," like was in some of the postings, in my interpretation, in the training I received, that goes beyond what is allowable. If somebody writes in a posting, "I disagree with gay marriages because my religious beliefs tell me that it's against my religion," that's freedom of expression.	24
MS KULASZKA:	Do you take into account on message boards that people are sitting in their homes and they perceive message boards as being a private space?	p. 4797, line 9
MR. STEACY:	No.	13
MS KULASZKA:	Do you take into account the fact that they believe they are conversing with other people?	14
MR. STEACY:	Yes, I do.	17
MS KULASZKA:	How do you take that into account?	18
MR. STEACY:	Regardless of the fact that you are conversing with somebody else, you don't have the right to say absolutely anything you desire, especially when it's in a written format.	20
MS KULASZKA:	Would you agree that a lot of this material, like the example you just gave, is almost barroom talk? If you were in a bar, you could hear this kind of talk.	24
MR. STEACY:	Yes, but that doesn't mean it's acceptable.	p. 4798, line 4
MS KULASZKA:	No, it doesn't mean that it's acceptable, but it is the equivalent, isn't it?	6
MR. STEACY:	No.	9
MS KULASZKA:	Except one is written and one is oral.	10
MR. STEACY:	Yes.	12
MS KULASZKA:	I am going to give you an example. This is something from my personal experience. This is a friend who had retired and her husband was driving her crazy, because he had retired, too, and she was complaining to someone I know about it, and she said, "You know, I think I'm going to have to shoot the bugger." She was talking about her husband, because he kept following her around their apartment. In an oral conversation it's humorous, but what if she had put that on a message board?	13
MR. STEACY:	I would think that the police might think there had been a death threat made.	25
MS KULASZKA:	That's right. It would stop being funny. It would stop being a little profane, but funny, a bit of a joke, and it would become quite serious, simply because it's written. Is that right?	p. 4799, line 2
MR. STEACY:	Yes.	7
MS KULASZKA:	Do you ever take into account that context?	8
MR. STEACY:	Yes, I do, and I have.	10
MS KULASZKA:	Do you take into account the fact that people who post on a message board are not part of a large-scale scheme to promote hatred?	11
MR. STEACY:	Again, it depends on the case. It depends on what was posted on the board. It depends on what the allegations of the complaint are.	15

charges coming

On gun protester Bruce Montague.

hiatus caused by wiki work

Several former readers have been in contact recently to ask what I've been up to, since I've clearly not been been blogging much.

I've gotten into wiki-administration over at wikipedia; also, a career move seems to be coming soon.

So if you need to find me there you can try here.

Kinsella on Irving

From the National Post:

Why Irving can't be ignored
Warren Kinsella, National Post
Published: Thursday, February 23, 2006

I met self-described "moderate fascist" David Irving for the first time one cold evening in March 1989, beneath the gleaming chandeliers at the posh Chateau Laurier in Ottawa.

The British author was a handsome man, dressed in a natty suit and immensely pleased by the turnout. Then and now the sainted knight of neo-Nazis, white supremacists and Hitler freaks around the globe, Irving stood before the paying crowd of more than 300 and declared himself a "hardcore disbeliever" in the gas chambers used to exterminate Jews at Auschwitz.

His audience, mainly comprised of older, white men and women from the Ottawa Valley, stood and wildly applauded that statement, and virtually every utterance made by Irving thereafter. Neo-Nazi skinheads, hired as security guards, slouched at the Chateau Laurier's doors and handed out copies of a magazine called Canada Awake! It called for "death to race mixers," contained tributes to Adolf Hitler, and called for "race revolution."

It was an astonishing scene, all of it taking place below the gilt ceilings of one of Canada's most renowned hotels. More than 300 people, paying to listen to a notorious Holocaust denier, knowing in advance that the media would be there to record their presence.

A school trustee, a former ranking diplomat, a Justice Department lawyer, public servants, school teachers: all of them there, notwithstanding the risk of exposure, to hear their St. George, the one whose best-selling books would slay the twin-headed dragon of International Jewry and Communism. As a reporter for the Calgary Herald and the Ottawa Citizen, I had followed Canada's far right movement for quite some time, but I was surprised and disturbed by what I witnessed that night.

Seven months following that wildly successful Ottawa visit, David Irving flew to Austria and spoke to banned neo-Nazi groups. In Vienna and Leoben, Irving stated that "the gas chambers in Auschwitz never existed." Later on, when not sharing stages with former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke or one-time American Nazi Party leader William Pierce, Irving would call survivors of the Auschwitz death camp "assholes," and claim that "more women were killed in the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car in Chappaquiddick than in the gas chambers at Auschwitz."

It was that 1989 Austrian far-right tour, more than any other, which would eventually have profound implications for David Irving's freedoms. The Austrians charged Irving under a 1947 law that prohibits any statements that "deny National Socialist genocide or other National Socialist crimes." In November, 2005, Irving returned to Austria -- despite being warned not to -- and was promptly arrested and held without bail. This week, Irving was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for denying in 1989 the crimes that took place at Auschwitz.

Austria and Germany possess some of the toughest anti-hate codes in the world -- because, to them, hate propaganda is not a subject for the debate club. To them, hate has real and lasting consequences. In other Western democracies, meanwhile, the latest development in Irving's file has stirred a predictable debate about "free speech." In a facile editorial in The Globe and Mail, for example, the newspaper advocated -- as it has done for years in respect of other haters, ranging from Ernst Zundel and Jim Keegstra -- that Irving be "left alone [so that] he might have faded into the obscurity he so richly deserves."

But here's the thing about the Globe's remedy: It doesn't work. At all. In the early 1990s, for example, a young American wrote a number of anti-Semitic treatises in small mid-West newspapers, and no one paid much heed to him, either. He was Timothy McVeigh, and, in furtherance of the hateful creed he shared with David Irving, he would go on to murder 168 men, women and children in Oklahoma City in April 1995. Quite a few of us were wishing that we had paid attention to him, then.

Moreover, the Globe and its ilk do not practise what they preach. Whilst urging the rest of us to "ignore" David Irving, the newspaper neglects to mention that it has written about him, often at length, 103 times since 1989. Physician, heal thyself.

I admit that I am not at all neutral on the subject of David Irving. I have debated him in the media and, in 2000, I was asked to be an expert defence witness in his British libel action against distinguished Emory University professor Deborah E. Lipstadt, who had described Irving in a book as a "dangerous spokesperson" for Holocaust denial. In the end, my testimony was not required: In a 334-page judgment, the presiding judge dismissed Irving's claim and found that he was indeed a Holocaust denier, anti-Semitic, and "a right-wing pro-Nazi polemicist."

David Irving and those like him deny the Holocaust to rehabilitate the reputation of Nazism and obviate the sins of Hitler. To leave Irving alone, as the Globe urges, is to do what far too many did in 1929 -- "leaving alone" the meaning of National Socialism's words, which would then shortly become the reality of National Socialism's deeds.

That, among other things, we should never forget.

Update. Dr. Dawg's comment made me go look up this, which I add for a more complete picture.

The Toronto Star
March 7, 1989, Tuesday, FINAL EDITION; Pg. A5

Angry protesters jeer Holocaust skeptic, by Trish Dyer

OTTAWA - About 150 angry protesters narrowly averted colliding with 250 supporters of British author and Holocaust skeptic David Irving at an exclusive Ottawa hotel last night. The Ottawa chapter of International Socialists, university students, members of Ottawa's Jewish community and the Outaouais Anarchist Circle picketed outside the Chateau Laurier for an hour carrying signs reading, "Never Again Irving Zundel," and "Nazis Out Of Ottawa," before bursting through a side door of the hotel in an attempt to disrupt Irving's lecture.

Irving's Ottawa tour organizer Ian Macdonald had delayed the speech until 300 seats - at $10 apiece - were filled. The speech was organized by the Citizens for Foreign Aid Review Organization. The primarily middle-class, middle-aged audience jeered at a handful of dissenters in the room when they asked questions after Irving's talk.

Irving testified in April, 1988, on behalf of Ernst Zundel in Ottawa and is the author of several controversial books about World War II. He has also produced several cassette tapes on prominent Nazis, including one about Rudolf Hess in German.

In Fredericton, N.B. last night, organizers changed the location for a lecture there Friday by Irving after the Roman Catholic church backed out of an agreement to provide one of its buildings, Canadian Press reports.

Irving had been scheduled to speak at the Msgr. Boyd Family Centre but the church cancelled without providing warning or a reason, said Terrence LeBlanc, president of the New Brunswick Free Speech League. He threatened to sue the church for breach of contract. The lecture will now take place at a hotel in Fredericton.

In Ottawa, four city police officers stood with outstretched arms in front of protesters while organizer Brian MacDougall of International Socialists led several choruses of "One-two-three-four, no more Nazis any more," and "Five-six-seven-eight, David Irving preaches hate." Hotel staff frantically pulled TV cameramen off oak and walnut tables in the lobby.

Minutes after the last protesters had left, the crowd waiting to hear Irving was told there had been a bomb threat and herded into the same lobby.

Three self-described "skinheads" wearing white supremacist badges stood at the door of the meeting room and told reporters they had "been asked to provide protection for Irving," but all three avoided direct contact with the protesters. The skinheads circulated around the room, taking pictures of a handful of audience members who dared to disagree with Irving. Neither the skinheads, the ticket seller at the door, nor the sellers of books and cassettes by Irving would give their names to a reporter.

Irving, who describes himself as an "alternative historian," or "gap-ologist," stood in the meeting room with a bemused expression during the protest.

Carleton University's history department chairman Carter Elwood cancelled a scheduled speech by Irving yesterday, after he and his colleagues were told Irving had testified in defence of Zundel last year.

Irving has never denied the Nazi genocide of Jews during World War II in print and was invited to address students on the basis of his reputation as the author of 23 controversial history books, Elwood told The Star.

Just when I thought it was safe to drink beer…

… while blogging, Zorph is restarting his Z-land Chronicles.

For the earlier episodes, see:

• Z-LAND ~ THE CANADIAN BLOGOSPHERE IN CARTOON FORM
  
• Z-LAND ~ VOLUME 1-1
  
• Z-LAND - EDITION #3 - TROUBLE AT THE TROLL BRIDGE
  
• BUCKETS MACH IV - LOST IN Z-LAND

David Sweet

David Sweet Watch is a new blog following David Sweet.

Harrison gives up fight to overturn election

Readers might want an update on the final outcome of the Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River. On the morning after the election, the Conservative incumbant made allegations of ballot-box stuffing that I discussed here, here, here, here, and here.

From the CBC:

Harrison gives up fight to overturn election
Jeremy Harrison said Monday he will not pursue any more legal challenges of the vote in the northern riding of Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River.

"I, and many of my former constituents, remain concerned about the very serious irregularities in the voting process in the riding," he said in a news release. "However, the people of the riding now need to know that they have an MP in place."

The announcement means Liberal MP Gary Merasty's job is safe for the time being.

Shortly after the Jan. 23 election, Harrison, the Conservative incumbent, made allegations of voter intimidation and ballot-box stuffing.

While he did not produce any evidence publicly to back up his claim, he later applied for a judicial recount.

The ballots were counted by a Queen's Bench judge who ruled Merasty won the riding with 10,191 votes to Harrison's 10,124.
"With a minority government situation, an election could happen at any time," Harrison said. "The citizens of northern Saskatchewan will have an opportunity to pass their judgment at that time."

Apparently Harrison's allegations were insufficient for him to bring the specifics forward.

Update. See now the story in the Star Phoenix, which covers most of the same material but adds:

As well, some of Harrison's supporters declared in sworn affidavits that, in addition to the raffle, partisan election literature was found in polling booths, in contravention of the Elections Act, and that voters from outside the riding voted in the election.

Update For the final ruling about the allegations of ballot-box stuffing, etc., see the official report here. Apparently all the allegations were without foundation.

Ottawa Citizen: Why we won't publish the cartoons

Scott Anderson, editor-in-chief of the Ottawa Citizen on his decision not to publish:

Why we won't publish the cartoons

Scott Anderson, The Ottawa Citizen

Published: Friday, February 17, 2006

The Western Standard is a plucky little magazine and a nice addition to the Canadian periodical landscape. Only Ken Whyte's Maclean's comes close to it in its unabashed display of conservative views.

The Western Standard was the first publication in Canada to feature the insightful and hilarious Mark Steyn after he packed up his toys and stormed off the pages of the National Post. Other than the Ottawa Citizen, it's the only publication to regularly feature the conservative Christian views of David Warren, the kind of voice that is often shut out in this country. It prides itself on being independent and outspoken and, because it is just that, it's a refreshing foil to the mass of politically correct, government-subsidized journals that crowd our magazine racks.

And it was a big disappointment this week when it tried to pass off a circulation-boosting stunt as a strident defence of free speech when it published the now infamous cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

I went on CBC radio the other day to debate the Western Standard's publisher, Ezra Levant, about his decision to publish the cartoons and our decision at the Citizen not to. It didn't go very well. Ezra's style is closer to shock radio than the CBC and, even though he was two time zones away, I could feel his hot breath on my neck. Ezra doesn't debate, he berates. And, for a little while, I was his punching bag. I was hoping for a civil debate but had to settle for the accusation that my paper has caved in to pressure from radical Muslims and "Jew haters."

Boiled down, Ezra's essential point is that most media in North America refuse to publish the cartoons out of fear of a backlash from radical Muslims. Ezra told me there is nothing wrong with fear but he is righteously angry because I refuse to admit that it is simply fear that prevents us from publishing the cartoons. Fear is indeed a powerful motivator and I admit that as a journalist I have had fearful moments (mostly during encounters with irate bosses). But that's not the reason behind our decision not to publish.

Not everything that happens in the world makes its way into the morning newspapers. Editors make decisions based on relevance or newsworthiness, taste, community and journalistic standards, graphic detail, perceived public interest and, yes, public reaction.

The videotaped beheading of a Western hostage in Iraq, to give one example, is newsworthy and interesting. But we don't publish pictures of beheadings because we consider them too graphic. Instead, we describe the act with words. Similarly, we try to avoid showing corpses, gratuitous nudity and foul language. Each story, column, photograph and cartoon is reviewed.

Ezra is right to say that the Muhammad cartoons are newsworthy and interesting. They are also considered very offensive by a large number of people. Editors don't normally shy away from offending some readers, but they generally try not to do it gratuitously. In the case of the Muhammad cartoons, we felt publication would be just that: gratuitous. You can argue that we made the wrong decision -- some of our own columnists have -- but to attribute it to cowardice is simply wrong and reflects Ezra's bellicose approach to anyone who disagrees with him.

Ezra says that newspapers are being intimidated by radical Muslim groups. That's his view and nobody is likely to change his mind. But it's odd to fight perceived intimidation with the tactics of a bully. If the Western Standard had quietly published the Muhammad cartoons, I would have admired the act. It would, I believe, still be the wrong decision, but I could have accepted it as a decision based on principle. Too bad that the publisher chose to turn it into a publicity stunt. As one wise reader has pointed out, it has become nothing more than "a journalistic mooning of the public."

Ezra Levant has gone on a chest-thumping rampage through the ranks of North American journalism, maligning the principled decisions taken by thousands of editors. He is trying to shame and bully others into adopting his view. That, too, is intimidation and we won't give in to it.

My friend Philip Lee, a journalism professor at St. Thomas University in New Brunswick, sums up, very well, the view I hold: "Freedom of the press means you can publish, or not. Not publishing is also an expression of freedom, which is difficult it seems for some to grasp."

Scott Anderson is editor-in-chief of the Ottawa Citizen.

Danish paper apologizes for cartoons

Update. Apparently the apology was a hoax: see here

Reuters:

Saudi papers publish Danish paper's cartoon apology

RIYADH (Reuters) - Saudi Arabian newspapers on Sunday printed an apology by the Danish paper whose cartoons lampooning the Prophet Mohammad have sparked deadly protests around the world.

"Allow me in the name of Jyllands-Posten to apologize for what happened and declare my strong condemnation of any step that attacks specific religions, ethnic groups and peoples. I hope that with this I have removed the misunderstanding," wrote Carsten Juste, the editor of Jyllands-Posten.

The full-page advertisements appeared in Asharq al-Awsat, which is printed around the Arab world, as well as the local al-Riyadh and al-Jazira.

They were dated February 5, but an advertising spokesman at al-Riyadh said it may have taken time for the papers, which are close to the government, to approve the announcement.

In recent days, 16 people have died in Nigeria and 11 in Libya during violent protests against cartoons published by the Danish paper last September and since republished in several, mainly European papers.

The global uproar over the cartoons came after Saudi Arabia recalled its ambassador from Denmark last month in response to pressure from clerics and a popular campaign against Danish products in the kingdom, the site of Islam's holiest shrines.

"It is extremely important to point out that the aim behind these cartoons was not to attack the Prophet at all or devalue him, but as an opening to dialogue on freedom of expression," Sunday's apology said.

"We did not realize at the time how sensitive this issue was for Muslims in Denmark or millions of Muslims around the world."

The adverts included a previously published statement from the Danish embassy in Riyadh declaring respect for Islam

Hat tip to Syncategorematic .

Blessed am I...

You Are a Peacemaker Soul

You strive to please others and compromise anyway you can. War or conflict bothers you, and you would do anything to keep the peace. You are a good mediator and a true negotiator. Sometimes you do too much, trying so hard to make people happy. While you keep the peace, you tend to be secretly judgmental. You lose respect for people who don't like to both give and take. On the flip side, you've got a graet sense of humor and wit. You're always dimplomatic and able to give good advice. Souls you are most compatible with: Warrior Soul, Hunter Soul and Visionary Soul

What Kind of Soul Are You?

Beer. All. Over. The. Laptop.

This is pretty funny.

Ezra's cry for help

A reader forwarded an email he go from Ezra Levant this morning. Apparently Ezra is feeling some heat over his recent decision to publish the Danish cartoons.

Dear Western Standard reader,

By now you have probably heard about our decision to publish the Danish cartoons -- those same cartoons that have been the excuse for riots around the world.

We believe that reprinting the cartoons is essential to properly telling that news story, which is why we did it. We also published them as a symbol of our freedom of the press, and in defiance of those around the world who would censor us through threats of violence.

I've never been more proud of our magazine.

Not everyone is happy with us, of course. A Calgary Muslim leader has reported us to the police, trying to get them to charge me with hate crimes. He has also filed a complaint against us with the human rights commission on the same grounds. Ironically, he has called our freedom of the press "intellectual terrorism".

Those are nuisance suits, of course. But the idea is to cost us money and time, break our spirit, erode our freedom of speech, and teach a lesson to all other media: that anyone who doesn't censor themselves will be made to wish they did.

The threats are working. Already, many Canadian magazine retailers who normally carry the Western Standard have caved in, announcing -- even before they see our new issue -- that they won't put us on their shelves. Again, the purpose of the censors is obvious: hurt our magazine economically, and make an example of us as a warning to all other media.

That's why I'm writing to you today: to ask for your help. Please do three things:

1. Let me know how you feel.

If you support our magazine's decision, let me know. Send me an e-mail to info@westernstandard.ca and I'll share it with the rest of our staff, to help buoy their spirits as we face this hurricane, to let them know we're not alone.

2. Encourage your local retailer to stock the Western Standard

Magazine retailers need to know that you value freedom of the press and your freedom to make up your own mind, and to not be censored by them or anyone else. Ask them to stock the magazine, or even to order it in just for you. You'll not only help us survive the boycott, but you'll put some steel in the spine of your local retailer.

3. Help us out directly.

If you're not yet a subscriber, now's the time to sign up -- a subscription is 37% cheaper than buying the magazine at the newsstand, and the money goes directly to us. If you're already a subscriber, consider renewing your subscription today, or extending your subscription, or even joining one of our clubs for enthusiasts by becoming a Sustaining Subscriber or a member of the Publisher's Circle.

You can find out more and do all of that right online, at http://www.westernstandard.ca/subscribe

It's fast, easy and secure -- and it helps us stay strong, and keep growing.

When we started the Western Standard nearly two years ago, I never imagined that we would have been at the center of a fight for our culture's basic freedoms -- or that the rest of Canada's media would be so silent, leaving us to fight this fight by ourselves.

But we're not all by ourselves. We have you.

Thank you for your help -- I look forward to your e-mails.

Yours truly,

Ezra Levant
Publisher

P.S. The best way to help us right now is to click on http://www.westernstandard.ca/subscribe

Who are the Western Standard's advertisers?

Air Canada seems to be distancing itself from Ezra Levant's Western Standard because of its decision to republish the controversial cartoons displaying Mohammed (see here). That is not really a surprise. This is just the kind of headache that most corporations want to avoid.

And they seem to have got out just in time to avoid being associated with Ezra's next blunder--a racist slur at native peoples (here).

Given all this, one wonders what Ezra's other advertisers think. I'd like to ask them, but have no idea who they are.

Does anyone have access to an old Western Standard? A list of its advertisers could be interesting.

Update Andy from Edmonton sends me this list:

Air Canada
Canaccord Capital
Currie Rose Resources
Central Gold Trust
Canadian Renewable Fuels Association
Children First Grants
Fort St. John
Eagle Crest Resorts in Mulege Bay, La Paz
Kimber Resources
Mindoro
Northern Miner
Norsemont Mining
Peer Financial
Saint John's School of Alberta
Silverado Mines
Timely Medical Alternatives
Bose
WYN developments

Merasty wins in Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River

From the CBC:

Merasty holds on to northern riding

The ballots have been recounted and Liberal Gary Merasty has held on to the riding of Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River, a vast riding that covers the northern half of Saskatchewan.

In the original count last month, the Conservative incumbent, Jeremy Harrison, lost by 73 votes to Liberal challenger Gary Merasty. The official result announced late Friday night reduced that number to 68 votes, but didn't overturn the result.

Harrison demanded the recount, suggesting the election had been stolen.

"We got reports of things like the Liberals driving around and threatening natives that they wouldn't get their cheque if they didn't vote Liberal, reports we had from individuals of plans to stuff ballot boxes," he told the Regina Leader-Post.

"Even the last poll, somehow it took 3 1/2 hours to count the last poll and, lo and behold, it was nearly 100 per cent turnout, all of which went Liberal, just enough votes to go over the top. So we're really concerned. These are the kinds of things that happen in banana republics, not in our country."

He offered no evidence of specific wrongdoing, at least in public.

Merasty claimed victory and said he was disappointed by the accusations but would go along with whatever procedure the law requires.

On Wednesday, 20 volunteers started to recount the ballots, with 174 polls and about 24,000 votes to go through.
Disputed ballots were set aside for the judge to rule on.

The original vote count was 10,192 votes for Merasty and 10,119 for Harrison.

The important sentence, I think, is the bold towards the bottom. In the immediate aftermath of his loss, Harrison made some serious allegations. But he apparently was not able to provide any evidence to substantiate them. His lawyers apparently made no mention of them during the legal proceedings that he initiated (see here).

Why the excessive and irresponsible allegations? Harrison lost the election on the last poll, which must have been disappointing to him. I pointed out a week ago, however, the results of the poll in question is consistent with the ways it's voted in the last couple of elections: here and here. Harrison should have known all this.

More Emerson manouevring?

Vancouver 24 Hours is reporting that the Conservative candidate in Vancouver Kingsway, Kanman Wong, said that there had been contingency plans for him to step-aside for Emerson even before January's election.

Tory had plan to assist Emerson
By IRWIN LOY, 24 HOURS
Vancouver Kingsway Conservative Kanman Wong says he had a backup plan to step aside for controversial new cabinet minister David Emerson - long before January's election.

"That was my plan. I heard lots of rumours that Mr. Emerson wasn't happy with the Liberal party long before the election," Wong said in an interview yesterday. "If one day Mr. Emerson prepared to cross the floor I was ready to step aside for him."

Instead, Emerson ran as a Liberal, taking the riding over the NDP's Ian Waddell and Conservative Wong, only to jump ship this week to the victorious Tories.

Wong said he respects Emerson completely, but wouldn't have made the same move if he were in the same position.

"If personally I had to [leave a party], I'd pretty much sit as an independent first, and then run in the next election," Wong said.

"It's bad timing for Mr. Emerson, certainly."

Meanwhile, the NDP's Waddell, a two-time loser to Emerson, wants victorious NDP MPs to push for an ethics investigation of Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Harper, Waddell says, broke the MP's code of conduct by enticing Emerson with a plum cabinet post.

NDP Burnaby-New Westminster MP Peter Julian says the party will push for one, but would prefer to see Emerson defend his seat in a byelection.